Posts

Showing posts from August, 2015

Declaration suit and for injunction = whether court fee has to be paid for injunction - no as it is consequential relief ..................... (c) directing the respondents 3 and 4 to restore the service connection by way of mandatory injunction;= Suits for declaration are dealt with by Section 24 of the Andhra Pradesh Court-Fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1956. It deals with suits for declaration with or without consequential reliefs not falling under Section 25 of the said Act. We are not concerned with Section 25 because this is not a suit falling under that Section. Clause (a) of Section 24 of the said Act deals with "suits where the prayer is for a declaration and for possession of the property to which the declaration relates"; Clause (b) deals with "suits where the prayer is for declaration and for a consequential injunction and the relief sought is with reference to any immovable property" Clause (c) deals with "suits where the prayer relates to the plaintiff's exclusive right to use, sell, print or exhibit any mark, name, book, picture, design or other thing and is based on an infringement of such exclusive right"; and Clause (d) deals with all other cases "where the subject-matter of the suit is capable of valuation or note"; and it provides that fee shall be computed on the amount at which the relief sought is valued in the plaint or at which such relief is valued by the Court, whichever is higher. None of the Clauses contemplate payment of separate court-fee for a consequential relief. The present suit falls under Clause (d) of Section 24, and the petitioner has paid the court-fee on the entire amount in respect of which a declaration has been sought.= In the circumstances, I am of the view that the learned Subordinate Judge was in error in directing the petitioner to pay court-fee on Rs. 24,000/- for the consequential relief of mandatory injunction and the Civil Revision Petition is, therefore, allowed, and the direction of the learned Subordinate Judge is set aside.-2015 A.P.( 1993) MSKLAWREPORTS

whether no remand in police custody can be given to the investigating agency in respect of the absconding accused who is arrested only after filing of the charge sheet

whether no remand in police  custody  can  be  given  to  the  investigating agency in respect of the absconding  accused  who  is  arrested  only  after filing of the charge sheet  

Out of eight  proclaimed  offenders,  five,  namely,  Rathin  Dandapat,  Md.
Khaliluddin, Dalim Pandey, Joydeb Giri  and  Tapan  Dey,  were  arrested  on
29.4.2014, whereafter on 30.4.2014 the CBI sought  their  remand  in  police
custody.  The Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate,  Jhargram  rejected  the
prayer of the CBI, aggrieved by which said  investigating  agency  submitted
Revisional Application (C.R.R. No. 1510 of 2014) before  the  Calcutta  High
Court.  Absconder-accused Chandi Karan was arrested on 9.5.2014  by  CID  of
the State, which informed the CBI about his arrest  and  meanwhile  vacation
Magistrate remanded judicial custody of said accused up to  12.5.2014.   The
CBI on 12.5.2014 sought remand  in  police  custody  in  respect  of  Chandi
Karan, but the same was also  rejected  by  …

whether on restoration of a suit an order of injunction passed is automatically revived or not. I am, therefore, of the opinion that the interim order of injunction did not revive on restoration of the suit. The Courts, however, would be well-advised keeping in view the controversy to specifically pass an order when the suit is dismissed for default stating when interlocutory orders are vacated and on restoration of the suit, if the court intends to revive such interlocutory orders, an express order to that effect should be passed. 2015 S.C. [ 2004]MSKLAWREPORTS

whether on restoration of a suit an order of injunction passed is automatically revived or not.
Apex court held that


I am, therefore, of the opinion that the interim order of injunction did not revive on restoration of the suit.


The Courts, however, would be well-advised keeping in view the controversy to specifically pass an order when the suit is dismissed for default stating when interlocutory orders are vacated and on restoration of the suit, if the court intends to revive such interlocutory orders, an express order to that effect should be passed. 2015 S.C. [ 2004]MSKLAWREPORTS

The principle that in the event of restoration of suit dismissed for default all the interim orders would revive has no application in a case like this because ad interim injunction was never in force as on the date of filing the appeal. - 2015 A.P.(2002) MSKLAWREPORTS

The principle that in the event of restoration of suit dismissed for default all the interim orders would revive has no application in a case like this because ad interim injunction was never in force as on the date of filing the appeal. - 2015 A.P.(2002) MSKLAWREPORTS
In the considered opinion of this Court no error much less grave error occasioning any failure of justice has crept into the impugned order. Be it noted that a civil court, though is competent to pass an ad interim injunction without giving notice duly recording reasons as contemplated under proviso to Rule 3 of Order XXXIX of the Code, by reason of rule 3A of the said Order the civil court is bound to dispose of the application for injunction within 30 days from the date on which injunction was granted and if it is not possible to do so, the civil court shall have to record its reasons for its inability to dispose of the application for injunction within 30 days from the date of grant of ex parte ad interim injunction. …

The words in Order XII Rule 6 CPC “may” and “make such order…” show that the power under Order XII Rule 6 CPC is discretionary and cannot be claimed as a matter of right. Judgment on admission is not a matter of right and rather is a matter of discretion of the Court. Where the defendants have raised objections which go to the root of the case, it would not be appropriate to exercise the discretion under Order XII Rule 6 CPC. The said rule is an enabling provision which confers discretion on the Court in delivering a quick judgment on admission and to the extent of the claim admitted by one of the parties of his opponent’s claim. In the suit for eviction filed by the respondent-landlord, appellant-tenant has admitted the relationship of tenancy and the period of lease agreement; but resisted respondent-plaintiff’s claim by setting up a defence plea of agreement to sale and that he paid an advance of Rs.82.50 lakhs, which of course is stoutly denied by the respondent-landlord. The appellant- defendant also filed the Suit for Specific Performance, which of course is contested by the respondent-landlord. When such issues arising between the parties ought to be decided, mere admission of relationship of landlord and tenant cannot be said to be an unequivocal admission to decree the suit under Order XII Rule 6 CPC.-2015 S.C.MSKLAWREPORTS

The words in Order XII Rule 6 CPC “may” and “make such order…” show that the power under Order XII Rule 6 CPC is discretionary and cannot be claimed as a matter of right. Judgment on admission is not a matter of right and rather is a matter of discretion of the Court. Where the defendants have raised objections which go to the root of the case, it would not be appropriate to exercise the discretion under Order XII Rule 6 CPC. The said rule is an enabling provision which confers discretion on the Court in delivering a quick judgment on admission and to the extent of the claim admitted by one of the parties of his opponent’s claim. In the suit for eviction filed by the respondent-landlord, appellant-tenant has admitted the relationship of tenancy and the period of lease agreement; but resisted respondent-plaintiff’s claim by setting up a defence plea of agreement to sale and that he paid an advance of Rs.82.50 lakhs, which of course is stoutly denied by the respondent-landlord. The app…

Where a party to the suit does not appear in the witness box and states his own case on oath and does not offer himself to be cross-examined by the other side, a presumption would arise that the case set up by him is not correct - 2015 S,C, [1999]MSKLAWREPORTS

PHOTO COPY - MARKING IN EVIDENCE - WHEN OTHER SIDE NOT OBJECTED - VALID

merely because a document is a photocopy cannot mean that the same would not be treated as evidence and the same can be exhibited unless there is objection to the exhibition of the document by the opposite party. - 2015 S.C.(2003)MSKLAWREPORTS